WPC() # VUNa % 0U: 4  0. 0D 0J5w4 0T 0^ 0he 0r 0|? 0 0A 1uU,F 0drU, BU>U *]U*B)DC AMj& D3#v~ 0@p!v! AO'' 0D( D/( B )HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPT0 (hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX(%$TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalTXhXXX7hXXdXXd7,  AZ"Arial RegularUv 3|x(s(2A$ %!TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'TXXXX7UXXdd7  wXX      0  (#$  0  2 0Indent123  DDDDӀ2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23    ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)<  9p`(ModernP 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(Monaco d<  9p`(&Times New Roman<  9p`(Arial<  9p`(Times% Line 7 d%%%%7Border 1dd-&C << G  !"\RA'\       ##d#  #   YYY FILED#X March25,1996CecilCrowson,Jr.#AppellateCourtClerk   !#d#"\RA'\       ##d#   $       #         PlaintiffsarguethatT.P.I.Civil2.03shouldhavebeengiven.Thatinstructionstates:AbsenceofWitnessorEvidenceIfapartytothiscasehasfailedtoproduceawitnesswithinhispowertoproduce,youmayinferthatthetestimonyofthewitnesswouldbeadversetothatpartyifyoubelieveeachofthefollowingelements:1.8 Thewitnesswasunderthecontrolofthepartyandcouldhavebeenproducedbytheexerciseofreasonablediligence.2.8 Thewitnesswasnotequallyavailabletoanadverseparty.Thewitnesswaslikelytobebiasedagainsttheadversepartybecauseofhisrelationshiptothepartywhowouldbeexpectedtoproducethewitness.3.8 Areasonablyprudentpersonunderthesameorsimilarcircumstanceswouldhaveproducedthewitnessifhebelievedthetestimonywouldbefavorabletohim.4.8 Noreasonableexcuseforthefailurehasbeenshown.8Tenn.Practice,T.P.I.Civil2.03,at29(2ded.1988).!!!!'dxd  !#d#"\RA'\       ##d#   $       #         WeexpressnoopinionastowhetherPlaintiffswouldhavebeenentitledtoamissingwitnessinstructionhaditbeenproperlyrequested.However,evenifthecourthadgivenamissingwitnessinstruction,weemphasizethat"[n]opresumptionorinferencefromthenonproductionofevidenceispotentenoughtosupplyindependentevidenceofafactwhichiswhollyunprovedbyotherevidence."Nat'lLife&AccidentIns.Co.v.Eddings,188Tenn.512,521,221S.W.2d695,698(1949).PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'@("$    Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Monaco   BA: T Monaco  BA: T Monaco -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . &  Xd&#  Xd#"\RA'\       ##$$Xd##$$Xd#          7XXdXXd7L'(&;+'h|` . `L@ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ WESTERNSECTIONATKNOXVILLEIMOGENEHICKSANDHUSBAND, )CARLHICKS,    )      )  Plaintiffs/Appellants, )CampbellCircuitNo.9593      )VS.      )AppealNo.03A019507CV00243      )PAULMILLER,    )      )  Defendant/Appellee. ) @ APPEALFROMTHECIRCUITCOURTOFCAMPBELLCOUNTY@ ATJACKSBORO,TENNESSEE@ THEHONORABLECONRADTROUTMAN,JUDGE THOMASK.McALEXANDERHILL,BOREN,DREW&MARTINDALE Jackson,TennesseeAttorneyforPlaintiffs/Appellants BILLYJ.STOKESFANSLER&WILLIAMS Knoxville,TennesseeAttorneyforAppellee AFFIRMED          ALANE.HIGHERS,J.CONCUR:W.FRANKCRAWFORD,P.J.,W.S.DAVIDR.FARMER,J.  Thepresentappealarisesoutofamulticarautomobileaccidentthatoccurredon7XXdXXd7August30,1991,inCampbellCounty,Tennessee.PlaintiffsImogeneandCarlHicksappealthejury'sverdictassessingequalliabilitytobothMrs.HicksandtheDefendant,PaulMiller,andawardingdamagestoneitherparty. TheaccidentinquestionoccurredinthesouthboundlanesofInterstate75.Plaintiffwastravelingintherighthand,orslow,laneof175.Duetoanearlieraccidentontheinterstate,thetrafficwasmovingslowly.Plaintifftestifiedthatshewasbehindatractortrailertruck,whichblockedherview.Plaintiffstatedthatshesignaledandthenmovedintothelefthand,orfastlane,oftheinterstate,inanattempttopassthetruck.Shortlythereafter,PlaintiffwasstruckfrombehindbytheDefendant.Mrs.Hicks'daughter,TanyaHicksDouglas,wasintheautomobilewithMrs.Hicksatthetimeofthecollision.BothMrs.Hicksandherdaughtersufferedpersonalinjuriesasaresultoftheaccident. Mr.Millerwasaccompaniedbyhiswife,CarolMiller,andhisminorsons,PaulMiller,II,andPhillipMiller,atthetimeoftheaccident.HetestifiedthatPlaintiffmovedquicklyandunexpectedlyintothelefthandlane.Mr.MillertestifiedthathedidnotseePlaintiffsignalbeforechanginglanes.BothMrs.MillerandPaulMiller,II,sufferedpersonalinjuriesasaresultoftheaccident. Plaintiffsraisetwoissuesonappeal.ThefirstissueiswhetherthetrialcourterredinfailingtochargethemissingwitnessinstructionconcerningPhillipMiller. Beforetheaccidentoccurred,theMillers,wholiveinScotts,Michigan,wereinroutetoGreenville,SouthCarolina,totakePhillipMillertocollege.Mr.MillerwastheonlypersonintheMillerautomobilewhobothwitnessedtheaccidentandtestifiedattrial.BothCarolMillerandPaulMillertestifiedthattheyhadnotseentheaccidentoccur.PhillipMillerwasnotpresentattrial.Mr.MillertestifiedthathedidnotknowwhetherPhillip,whowassittinginthebackseat,onthedriver'sside,witnessedtheactualcollision.Oncrossexamination,PaulMiller,IItestifiedthathedidnotknowwhetherPhillipsawtheaccident.ThistestimonywasinconflictwithPaul'searlierdepositiontestimony,inwhichhestatedthathisbrotherPhilliphadseentheaccident.Inthecourseofthetrial,counsel'srecitationofPaulMiller'sconflictingdepositiontestimonywastheonlyindicationthatPhillipMillerwitnessedtheaccident.BasedonthattestimonyandPhillipMiller'sabsencefromtrial,Plaintiffsarguethatitwaserrorforthetrialjudgenottoincludea"missingwitness"instructioninhischarge. )   ׀ UnderRule51oftheTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedure,apartymayobjecttothetrialcourt'sdeliveryofjuryinstructions.Errormaybepredicateduponeitherthejudge'somissionofarequestedinstructionoruponthecourt'smisstatementofarequestedinstruction.Rulev.EmpireGasCorp.,563S.W.2d.551,553(Tenn.1978).Counselmayobjecttothecourt'sjuryinstructionsattrial,ortheobjectionmaybemadeforthefirsttimeinthemotionforanewtrial.Tenn.R.Civ.P.51.02(Michie1995).However,inordertoappealthetrialcourt'sfailuretogivethejuryaspecificinstruction,counselmusthaverequestedthespecificinstructionduringthecourseofthetrial.Rule,563S.W.2dat554.InRule,thecourtstated:8 8 Whenapartyisoftheopiniontheinstructionsgivenbythecourtdonotcoverallphasesofthecase,heshouldcalltheattentionofthetrialjudgetothatfactandtenderotherandfullerinstructions;otherwise,hecannotpredicateerroruponomissionsinormeagernessofthechargeasgiven.Id. Inthepresentcasewecannotfind,nordoescounselciteustoanyplaceintherecord,wherePlaintiffsrequestedamissingwitnessinstruction.HadPlaintiffs'counselsubmittedamissingwitnessinstruction,andthetrialjudgedecidedtoomitthatinstruction,counselwouldnothavebeenrequiredtoobjecttothecourt'somissionattrial. +   ׀However,wherecounselfailedtorequestaspecialinstructionattrial,hecannotnowclaimerrorbecausethetrialcourtdidnotgivethedesiredinstruction. Plaintiffs'secondissueonappealiswhetherthetrialcourterredinadmittingevidenceofinjuriessustainedbyMrs.Hickspriortotheaccident. InApril1991,Mrs.Hickswasinvolvedinanaltercationwithhersoninlawwhichresultedinstabwoundstoherleftarm.InJuly1991,Mrs.HickssoughtmedicalattentionfromDr.Schaumburg,inKnoxville,Tennessee,duetopainresultingfromtheseinjuries.TheautomobileaccidentoccurredonAugust30,1991. Duringpretrialmotions,Plaintiffs'counselarguedthatMrs.Hicks'earlierinjuriesweresolelytoherleftarmandwerethereforeunconnected,andirrelevantto,theexistenceofthebackandneckinjuriesshesustainedintheAugust30,1991collision.Plaintiffs'counselarguedthatevidenceofthepriorinjurywasinadmissiblepursuanttoTenn.R.Evid.401,403(Michie1995).Defendant'scounselarguedthatMrs.Hicks'priorinjurieswererelevanttothepresentcasebecausetheytendedtoestablishapreexistinginjury.Thelowercourtpermittedtheevidenceaboutthepriorstabbinginjury,butpermittedcounseltorefertothepriorincidentonlyasan"altercation." AlthoughweagreewithPlaintiffs'counselthatthereistenuousrelationship,atbest,betweeninjurieswhichresultedfromthestabbingincidentofApril,1991,andtheautomobileaccidentofAugust30,1991,wefindthatthetrialcourt'sadmissionofevidencerelatingtotheprior"altercation"constitutedharmlesserroranddidnotaffectthejury'sverdict.Leav.Gentry,167Tenn.664,675,73S.W.2d170,174(1934). Forthereasonsstatedherein,weherebyaffirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourt.CostsonappealaretaxedtoPlaintiffs,forwhichexecutionmayissue,ifnecessary.               򀀀        HIGHERS,J.CONCUR:򀀀CRAWFORD,P.J.,W.S.򀀀FARMER,J.